Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/2015 P&Z Minutes 19-15 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-19-15 Hearing Date: August 27, 2015 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 15 & 19 N. Elmhurst Avenue PETITIONER :WeekleyHomes, LLC PUBLICATION DATE: August 12, 2015 PIN NUMBER: 03-34-320-054-0000 & 03-34-320-053-0000 REQUEST: -Conditional Use for a final planned unit development -Conditional Use to allow dwelling units on the ground floor in the B5 District - Variation to the side yard setback -Variation to the driveway width MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Fitzgerald William Beattie Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Norbert Mizwicki Joseph Donnelly, Chair Agostino Filippone-Associate MEMBERS ABSENT: Sharon Otteman STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTY :Weekley Homes, LLC Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Beattie made a motion to rd approve the minutes of the July 23, 2015 meeting; Commissioner Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 7-0.After hearing one (1) additional case, Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-19-1515 & 19 N. Elmhurst Avenue. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner is seeking a conditional use to allow a final planned unit development and dwelling units on the ground floor in the B5 District and variations to the side yard setback and driveway width for the property located at 15 & 19 N. Elmhurst Avenue. The Subject Property is located on the east side of Elmhurst Avenue, just north of the post office. Ms. Andrade stated that the subject property currently consists of two separate parcels and measures just over an acre in area. The property is vacant and is zoned B5Central Commercial. The property was formerly occupied by a single-family residence and a commercial building, which were demolished in 2009. The subject property is bordered by the RA Single Family District to the north and west, and the B5 Central Commercial to the east and south. Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-19-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 2 Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner is proposing to consolidate the Subject Property to a lot of record and construct a townhome development consisting of four (4) principal buildings. The buildings closest to Elmhurst Avenuewould consist of four (4) dwelling units each while the rear buildings would include three (3) dwelling units each; for a total of fourteen (14) dwelling units. She further explained entrances to the residences will front the side property lines. Each ofthe units would have a separate entrance, a rear loading two-car garage, and the ability to park two cars behind each garage. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed development requires conditional use approval of a planned unit development (PUD) since there would be more than one principal building on a zoning lot. The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. Ms. Andrade further explained, in addition to the conditional use request for a PUD, theproposed development requiresconditional use to allow dwelling units located on the ground floor. Because the Subject Property is zoned B5 Central Commercial, dwelling units located on the ground floor require conditional use approval. Dwelling units are permitted above the first floor. Ms. Andrade stated although the Subject Property is zoned B5, a front yard setback and side yard setback along the north property line applies. Because existing lots comprising forty percent (40%) or more of the Elmhurst Avenue frontage between the two (2) intersecting streets (Central Road and Thayer Street) are developed with front yard setbacks, the average of such front yard setbacks applies to the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade further explained, in addition a transitional setback equal to the building height applies along the north property line. The proposed developmentwould comply with the required setbacks along the west, south, and east lot lines but requires variation approval for the side yard setback along the north lot line. The buildings would measure thirty five feet (35’)in height which requires athirty five feet (35’) setback along the north lot line. The Petitioner seeks a Variation to allow atwenty feet (20’)setback along the north lot line. Ms. Andrade stated that B5 District does not have a lot coverage limitation; however, the plans indicate sixty-threepercent(63%) overall lot coverage. Ms. Andrade stated that the elevation drawings for the three (3)unit and four (4)unit townhome buildings indicate the proposed buildings would measure three stories high and consist of flat roofs. The front and side building elevations would consist of masonry and siding, while the side elevations would consist of siding. Ms. Andrade explained the elevations primarily consist of flat walls with little relief and do not adequately address Elmhurst Avenue, which is a highly visible elevation. Ms. Andrade stated Staff recommends revising the building elevations to provide additional architectural interest and relief. The elevations shall be revised to be consistent with recent townhome developments in the area. Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for a conditional use as the following: The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-19-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 3 The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; There is adequate provision for utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and The request is in compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff reviewed the request for a conditional use to allow a planned unit development and dwelling units on the ground floor and finds that the standards have been met, as set forth in the Petitioner’s responses to the standards. She further explained that the proposed residential land use would complement the surrounding neighborhood and be consistent with the adjacent single-family residential homes. The townhome development would serve as a transition between the single-family detached homes located to the north and the non-residential use (post office) to the south. The proposed townhome development is keeping with previously approved townhomes projects in the downtown area of the Village. Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for a variation as the following: A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; Lackof desire to increase financial gain; and Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff reviewed the Petitioner’s request for variations and finds that the standards have been met, as set forth in the Petitioner’s responses to the standards. The Subject Property is unique with respect to the location and zoning district. She further explained that the Subject Property is zoned B5 and is adjacent to both the RA Single Family District and the B5 Central Commercial. The proposed development was designed with a twenty foot (20’) side yard setback along the north and a twenty three foot (23’) driveway width to allow for the dedication of a across access easement along the south property line, which would allow for access to potential future development to the east and south. Ms. Andrade stated the Village’s Downtown Implementation Plan identifies the Subject Property and the adjacent post office site as key opportunity sites for development. Ms. Andrade further stated that Staff finds the conditional use and variationstandards as listed in the Zoning Ordinance have been met and that granting such requests would be in the best interest of the Village. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff’s approval findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend of the following motions: Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-19-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 4 “To approve a: A.Conditional Use for a final planned unit development (PUD) consisting of four (4) principal buildings; B.Conditional Use to allow dwelling units located on the ground floor; C.Variation to the allow a twenty foot (20’) side yard setback along the north lot line; and D.Variation approval to allow a twenty three foot (23’) driveway width; subject to the conditions listed in the staff report including: 1.Revised building elevations for staff review and approval; She stated that the Village Board’s decision is finalfor this case. Commissioner Beattie asked what the zoning would be for just townhomes with no commercial aspect. Ms. Andrade respondedthere are multiple zoning classifications for multi-family developments. The townhome projects in the downtown arezoned B5. Commissioner Beattie asked for clarification regarding the lot coverage requirement in the B5 District. Ms. Andrade stated the B5 District doesn’t have a lot coverage limitationShe addedthat the Subject Property doesn’t abut multi-family residential; therefore, staff is supportive of keeping the Subject Property B5 to keep it consistent with the district to the south. Commissioner Beattie asked if the Petitioner will have to comply with the lighting code as a condition. Ms. Andrade responded lighting was not required for the proposed development but Staff was recommending that building lights be added to address thecommentsreceived from thepolice department. Commissioner Filippone asked if the post office to the south of the Subject Property was being targeted as a redevelopment opportunity. Ms. Andrade stated it’s not actively being targeted but it is identified in the Village’s Downtown Plan as a sitefor potential redevelopment. She gave some brief information regarding the downtown plan. Commissioner Filippone asked if there would be any issues for possible redevelopment of the post office if the motion was granted for the townhomes. Ms. Andrade stated there wouldn’t be an issue. The proposed cross access easement along the south end of the subject property would allow access for any future development. Ms. Andrade stated the Downtown Implementation Plan suggested the Subject Property and the post office site would be a goodsite for a mixed use multi-family residential site. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if the additional set of elevations they received were in response to the Staff’s comments. Ms. Andrade stated they were the first response to the staff’s comments butStaff was still asking for revisions. Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-19-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 5 Chairman Donnelly asked why there is no setback requirement to the south and the east. Ms. Andrade stated there are no setback requirements in theB5 zoning district. Chairman Donnelly swore in Katrina McGuire, Thompson Coburne LLP 55 E. Monroe Street, Chicago Illinois. Ms. McGuire introduced the team of people that are working on the project. Kevin Seay, land acquisition manager, 1930 Thoreau DriveSchaumburg, Illinois gave a brief description about David Weekely Homes which is the developer of the townhomes. Ms. McGuire briefly described the characteristicsof the Subject Property and stated that the townhome development would be a good transition from the single family homes to the commercial use along Central Road. She further stated the project doesn’t require a significant amount of relief from the zoning code and is consistent with the Downtown Implementation Plan. Ms. McGuire stated that the current height of the structure is consistent with the maximum height requirement for a B5 zoning district. She further explained the development will exceed the parking requirements andwill have plenty of parking visitors. Ms. McGuire explained that they are seeking a conditional use to have dwelling units on the ground floor. She explained that B5 allows residential on upper levels but not on the ground level. She explained that the development is strictly residential and will not have a retail component on the ground level. She stated that the residential use is suitable for this site because it transitions the commercial use from the residential neighborhood. Ms. McGuire further explained that they are seeking a variation for the north side setback to be reduced to twenty feet (20’). She stated she feels the variation is appropriate because the site boarders a cemetery and will not be encroaching on a residential use. She further stated that the project will allow a thirteen foot (13’) easement to the south end of the property to accommodate potential future development. Ms. McGuire stated the materialsthat will be used for the development are a mix of masonry and hardy board siding which is consistent of the materials used throughout the neighborhood. Ms. McGuire stated that they are able to preserve all of the trees along the perimeter of the site and will only have to remove the trees within the site in order to develop the project. Extensive foundation plantings will also be planted along the entrance of the development. Ms. McGuire also stated that the project will consist of underground and aboveground detention for storm water management is consistent with the Village’s ordinances. She stated a team of engineers, developers, and architects are available to answer any questions. Chairman Donnelly asked if the Petitioner understands and agrees with the conditions that Staff has placed on the project. Ms. McGuire stated that they do understand and agree to all the conditions Staff has placed on the approval of the project. Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-19-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 6 Commissioner Mizwicki asked what the square footage of each unit is. Ms. McGuire stated that the units are about nineteen hundred square feet of living space. Commissioner Youngquist asked how the garbage situation would be handled for the development. Joe Masheik with BSB Design locatedat 1540 W. Dundee Rd. Palatine stated that the garages are built to accommodate both recycle and waste bins. He further stated the condominium association would hire a private service to collect the garbage. Commissioner Youngquistasked howthe association would handle snow removal. Mr. Masheik stated that they would have a service to handle the snow removal; if there was a year when the snow was in excess the service would hull it offsite. Commissioner Youngquist asked for clarification on the guest parking situation. Ms. Andrade stated the driveway aprons couldaccommodate two carsfor guests. Commissioner Youngquist commented on the units being built facing the north and south and the unfavorable views the buildings will look out to. Mr. Mashiek stated they have been through a lot of layouts with Staff and feel that this is the best solution because it less impervious surface. He further stated the view to the south has the potentialif the post office site were to be redeveloped like it was statedin the Downtown Plan. Commissioner Filippone asked what the expected timeline of construction is. Mr. Mashiek stated that all fourteen units would be constructed within the year if started in 2016. Commissioner Youngquist asked how much a unit would cost to a buyer. Mr. Mashiek stated they are targeting the $400,000.00 range. Chairman Donnelly swore in Clayton Beilstein 15 N. Ridge. Mr. Beilsteinstated he lives in the neighborhood to the west of the development. He stated that he is concerned about the height of the structures because they will be visible from his backyard and would invade his privacy. He stated he doesn’t think the townhome development is a suitable project for the Subject Property and that it brings an urban feel into a suburban neighborhood. Chairman Donnelly swore in JoEllyn Taylor at 107 N. Elmhurst Avenue. Ms. Taylor stated that she lives two houses to the north of the Subject Property. She stated her concerns regarding the modern style of the proposed buildings don’t match with the traditional style of the other homes in the neighborhood. She further explained that the traffic around that area is significantly heavy and will become even worse with the added cars from the development. She also stated that the development will decreasethe property value of her home and the surrounding neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-19-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 7 Chairman Donnelly swore in Tom Wilson from 105 N. Elmhurst Avenue. Mr. Wilson stated that he lives inthe first house north of the Subject Property. He explained that he agrees with the other residents’ concerns and stated that the volume of units is way too high for the neighborhood along with the height of the structures. Mr. Wilson stated that he is also concerned that the attractive part of the buildings will be facing the each other and not out towards the street view and that a massive brick wall will be the view from the neighborhood. Mr. Wilson stated that he is also concerned because there is no parkway between the building and the sidewalk. In the winter the snow plow will completelycover the sidewalk with snow and will be impassible. Chairman Donnelly stated that the sidewalk belongs to the Village and that the developer has a room to move the project back in order to create a parkway if they so choose. Mr. Wilson stated that he is also confused about the post office’s future. He stated that there is a lot of speculation regarding the post office closing in the future and that itseems there are a lot of steps taken within this development that speculated the post office will close in the future. Chairman Donnelly swore in Patricia Druger from 30 N. Pine Street, Mount Prospect. Ms. Druger stated that she likes the idea of the townhomes being developed at the subject property as oppose to a huge apartment complex. She did say she is against the number of units being proposed and feels that it is too many for the size of the Subject Property. Ms. Druger also stated that the traffic is an issue and will worsen with the additional cars. Chairman Donnelly swore in Tom Oshkin 9 N. Ridge, Mount Prospect. Mr. Oshkin stated that he is also concerned about the traffic cutting through the neighborhood. Chairman Donnelly confirmed with Staff that the Petitioner could put to sixty (60) units per acre in the B5 District. He stated that the Petitioner could build a much larger development on the Subject Property than what is proposed. Ms. Andrade stated that the maximum heightpermitted in the B5 District is thirty five feet (35’). Ms. Andrade stated that regarding the traffic, the engineering department did not have any comments regarding the traffic. Chairman Donnelly asked Staff to address the drainage issue. Ms. Andrade stated Staff was not aware of any drainage issues in that area, but that the development will be subject to the Village’s requirements for storm water retention. Chairman Donnelly asked what the maximum height for homes in a residential district is. Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-19-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 8 Ms. Andrade stated that it is twenty-five feet (25’) from the midpoint of a pitched roof. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioner to address the questions of the public. Mike Anderson addressedthe issues regarding the drainage on the site. He explained per Village Code the water needs to be trapped before it exits the site. He explained the process in which the water is collected underground and slowly released into the Village’s sewer system. Chairman Donnelly stated that the drainage system will helpwith the current issues. Mike Anderson confirmed that it would. Ms. McGuire addressed the concerns regarding density and traffic. She explained that the Subject Property is zoned for a much greater density than what is being proposed. She further explained that the site is challenging because it faces a commercial use,cemetery, and the garages of residential homes. Ms. McGuire stated that the development’s densityisappropriate for atransitional use that abuts up against a residential neighborhood. Ms. McGuirestated they provided extra parking to allow guests to park off the residential streets. She further stated the buyers demographicfor the townhomes are not geared towards families that will have three or four cars per household. The units are two (2) or three (3) bedrooms units. Ms. McGuire stated that the Village reviewed the plans and didn’t have any comments or concerns regarding the traffic. She further stated that the traffic on Central Road is an existing issue and the fourteen units will be a small incremental addition to the current traffic situation. Two citizens stated they are still concerned about the increased traffic down Elmhurst Avenue and Ridge Avenue. Chairman Donnelly swore in Bonny Scott 12 N. Pine Street Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Scott asked if the Petitioner had any intentions of buying the parking lot behind the post office and turning it into a green space. Chairman Donnelly stated that the driveway easement is in place for any future development. Ms. Scott stated that the average lot sizes are 50x150 in that neighborhood and that the Subject Property is entirely too small for the density proposed and suggested the Petitioner reconsider the amount of units. Commissioner Beattie gave a general statement about the potential increase in density this site is capable of. He stated there are many different projects that could go into the Subject Property that wouldn’t have to come before the board that have the potential of being denser and more unattractive to the residents than the current proposal. Ms. Scott asked if the Village can guarantee the development won’t turn into subsidized housing. Commissioner Youngquist stated that the Planning and Zoning Board can’t make those decisionsand suggested that issue couldbe discussed at Village Board. Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-19-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 9 Commissioner Mizwickireiterated Commissioner Beattie’s earlier point. A citizen from the audience asked how the Subject Property can be changed from B5. Chairman Donnelly stated that it is part of the Downton ComprehensivePlan andneeds to stay B5 in order to be consistentwith that plan. Commissioner Youngquist added that the previous use of the Subject Property was a multi-tenant office use. Chairman Donnelly brought the discussion back to the board and closed the public portion of the hearing. Commissioner Youngquist stated that he believes the buyer demographic for the townhomes will be commuters from downtown and/or empty nesters that don’t have multiple children or cars per household. He also stated he doesn’t believe the traffic issue will have a significant impact. There was general conversation between board members reading the previous building on the subject property. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by CommissionerFitzgerald to approve the following: To approve a: A.Conditional Use for a final planned unit development (PUD) consisting of four (4) principal buildings; B.Conditional Use to allow dwelling units located on the ground floor; C.Variation to the allow a twenty foot (20’) side yard setback along the north lot line; and D.Variation approval to allow a twenty three foot (23’) driveway width; subject to the conditions listed in the staff report,including revised building elevations for staff review and approval. UPON ROLL CALL:AYES: Filippone, Fitzgerald, Beattie, Youngquist, Kueter, Mizwicki, Donnelly NAYS: None The vote was approved 7-0 with a positive recommendation to Village Board. The After hearing one (1) additional case Commissioner Younguist made a motion seconded by Commissioner Filippone and the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 pm. ________________________ Jenna Moder, Administrative Assistant Planning and Zoning Meeting-August 27, 2015PZ-19-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman